Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jun 10 2011, 03:41 PM

Following on from a chat with Sollesnes earlier today I thought I'd post the question - Should bands experiment ? Or should they keep experimentation to side projects ?

Considering the backlash from fans over Morbid Angel's latest album (although it could be more about the quality of the experimentation rather than the act of experimenting) how many of us are open minded and prepared to accept our favoutire bands pushing their boundaries and trying new things ?

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Jun 10 2011, 04:33 PM

There are some boundaries that I expect my favorite bands not to cross. I mean if I am a fan of band X because this band has some unique traits, than as long as I can find some of the loved traits in their new productions than I am happy (more or less according to the quality of the experiment/change). For example I am waiting for a new Blind Guardian album that is released something like every 4 years, and they sound quite different every time but I still love it. However if they would surprise me with a death metal sound I would be very disappointed. Still they have the right to do whatever they like:)

Posted by: Gitarrero Jun 10 2011, 04:46 PM

Hm, hard to tell. I think it is important for a band to grow and show some progress, but they should still sound like themselves. Linkin Park sure pushed the limits too far with their recent album. Metallica also did when they recorded St. Anger. I agree with Marek, Blind Guardian always manage to progress and still sound like they used to
I think it's okay to experiment and do something wicked on 1 or 2 tracks on an album, but if they wanna do something completely different, they should rather do some side-projects. (Like Fort Minor in the case of Linkin Park). What I don't really get is why some artists do side-projects or solo albums that sound exactly like their main band...

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Jun 10 2011, 04:52 PM

To motivate other band members by showing that they can be easily replaced

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jun 10 2011, 04:59 PM

I never thought of it that way but you've got a good point !

Excellent answers both of you, I think you captured my opinion very well too

Posted by: Fusar Jun 10 2011, 05:05 PM

I'm not an expert in heavy music, so I can't discuss with about these bands...but I discussed a few days ago with a friend about Coldplay, as they were presenting new songs @Rock am Ring and Rock im Park. Coldplay gave us so much nice songs (Clocks, In My Place, The Scientist, Lost!, Viva La Vida, Violet Hill etc - even if you don't like mainstream, you have to agree that these are well-made pop songs ), so that we, as fans, don't want to listen to the same recipee in new albums again and again. If we want old Coldplay, we should listen to old albums. Viva La Vida showed some progress, but the new-presented songs didn't go further... we both concluded from our discussion, that we want to hear something new!
I think, in pop area, U2 has managed experimenting without selling their "soul" very well, and this over decades!

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jun 10 2011, 06:27 PM

Very good points Fusar.. and I think youre right about U2.

Also, it doesn't have to just be about heavy bands, so anyone's opinion counts, no matter what style they're into

Posted by: Gabriel Leopardi Jun 10 2011, 07:15 PM

For me the most important thing is the song itself. Fusa gave us a good example with Coldplay, they experimented in their latest album which is cool but it seems that they focused more on experimentation than in the composing. I like when the bands experiment but if they don't forget that after all the most important is the song. For example, Metallica's black album has been a big change, they were experimenting with a new sounds and a new style. The result is: one of the most important metal albums of all time.. why? the songs are SO AWESOME.